Search court records - party Timothy Gonzalez, page 5

No. 23 ORDER Directing the Parties shall file supplementary briefs, and shall be no longer than (3) ...

Document TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS R&D, INC. et al v. DEVA HOLDING A.S., 2:24-cv-04404, No. 23 (D.N.J. Aug. 5, 2024)

This matter comes before the Court on the motion to dismiss by Defendant Deva Holding A.S.

The statute, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e) (emphasis added), states: (2) It shall be an act of infringement to submit— (A) an application under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 USCS § 355(j)] or described in section 505(b)(2) of such Act [21 USCS § 355(b)(2)] for a drug claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent ...

The parties shall file supplementary briefs on this question: what is the definition of “drug” in the context of this statutory provision?

Briefs shall be no longer than three pages and shall be submitted simultaneously by August 19, 2024.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Stanley Chesler
Analyze Party
- Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D
Analyze Firm
- Demant
- Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga

No. 49 OPINION

Document EBIN NEW YORK, INC. v. KISS NAIL PRODUCTS, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-02369, No. 49 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2024)

None of the conditions warranting dismissal with prejudice are present here.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Esther Salas
Analyze Party
- Ebin New York
- Kiss Nail Products
Analyze Firm
- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie
- Rivkin Radler

No. 252 OPINION AND ORDER

Document GW RESEARCH LIMITED v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-00018, No. 252 (D.N.J. Jan. 11, 2024)

v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Tnequitable conduct is an equitable defense to patent infringement that, if proved, bars enforcement of a patent.”).> D. The Motion The Plaintiff, as noted, moved to dismiss the Counterclaim.

In the 2007 Agreement, the Plaintiff and that entity agreed to collaborate, “with a view to selecting the most promising candidates for full clinical development[.

To see why, begin by noting that to establish intent for inequitable conduct purposes, a claimant must “name the specific individual associated with the filing or prosecution of the application issuing ... who both knew of the material information and deliberately withheld or misrepresented it.” Exergen, 975 F.3d at 1329.

July 30, 2013) {intent not properly pled because the complaint failed to allege “the specific individual who knew that [the patent applicant] did not qualify as a small entity and made the misrepresentation to the PTO”) (cleaned up); Int’l Test Sols., Inc. v. Mipox Int’l Corp., 2017 WL 2118314, at *6 (N.D. Cal.

The Defendants would have the the Counterclaim fails because it did not plead, as it In sum: the “name fof] the specific individual associated with had to, the filing or prosecution of the application issuing ... who both knew of the material information and deliberately withheld or misrepresented it.” Exergen, 575 F.3d at 1329.4

Cite Document

Analyze